Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax by Stargazer.

Forty years ago, I woke up in the middle of night to watch moon landing. I saw it with my own eyes ! For people who have not been part of 500 million, it is difficult to describe how it felt. It felt real. We felt like undivided human race.

But was it real? Saturn Fau blasts were real for sure, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. But did they carry crews on top? Did crews reach the Moon, landed there and came back?

I do not know. What me and 500 million other people actually saw was a result of double conversion between original 500 low scan electronic feed, recording of it on film and then telecine conversion to NTSC. No different than old use of
telecine to show movies on television. Original low scan tape was recycled and allegedly found again recently. Yet, NASA celebrates 40 years with new enhanced footage.

I believe that what we have been presented is a forgery and manipulation of enormous proportions.However, faked photographs are only the proof that the footage is forged, not the proof that NASA was not on the moon.

Why the forgery has been made is another question altoghether. There must be a reason for such effort.It strikes me that too many self-proclaimed skeptics throw an easy ball to catch to NASA and self-proclaimed hoax busters. Logical fallacies are dominant.

It is possible that shady agencies are propping up shadows issue to keep the real questions well hidden in the shade. It seems to me that fluttering of the flag serves to distract our attention from gapping errors that can not be logically explained.

How about some Earth-bound experiments?

1. Everybody speaks of allegedly fake photographs, but few of the camera. Hasselblad 500EL was a manual camera fitted with Biogon 60 lens. This lens is mild wide angle lens, i.e. produces minimal distrtion while still having a wide view angle. The minimum apperture was f5.6 so it means that it need not be focused to have everything sharp in focus. Photographer, Neil Armstrong only had to concentrate to compose the picture. The question is – how? Camera was strapped to his monkey suit, and he was not able to check composition because of the helmet restraint. He was shooting “from the hip”. He had 450 frames to shoot and all of them came properly exposed and excellently composed. I’d love to see NASA handpick an aviator of it’s choice (i.e not professional photographer with Hasselblad experience) and three proffesional photographers and have all of them try to do the same, shoot 450/450 perfectly composed photographs with camera attached to their chest.

2. According to Zeiss, Hasselblad lens was equipped with polarizing filter. Polarizing Filter is used to cut unwanted reflections or to enhance colours of the sky when there is atmosphere. Neil’s self-portrait on Buzz’s helmet is a proof that polarizer was either removed or rotated in such fashion that it does not block the reflection. Try this at home, with welder’s gloves and camera strapped to your chest.

3. This Neil Armstrong’s famous self-portait wa made by using highly convex Buzz’s visor as a mirror. Yet, there is no deformation of his portrait. It looks like he made it in a flat mirror. Yet reflection of his visor shows
distortion due to convexity. It was long before Photoshop plugins, it had to be done right on film. How? Again, it can be demonstrated here on Earth in a vacuum chamber to rule out paralax.

4. Marketing departments of Hasselblad camera, Carl Zeiss optics ,Omega Watches, Fischer pens, Technica Spa (moonboots)
flogged to death their products being on the Moon. One company is suspiciously absent – Kodak and their Wunderchrome
film. We were never told what kind of film it was, was it slide or negative? What was the ASA value of this film? What was the grain value, tollerance to under and over exposure? How this film was able to withstand crinking at 120 Celsius and not breaking in subzero temperature? How it was resistant to radiation? Generations not familiar with the film will not ask such questions.

Is this film still in production, or the formula was destroyed along the blueprints for the LEM ? Allegedly, this film was
highly classified. Heck, we know the specs of other highly classified equipment, this is 40 years old technology.

5. What technology kept LEM feet dust-free as can be seen on all photographs? It can be demonstrated here on Earth and make a killing, more than Roomba.

Only when it is proven without resonable doubt here on Earth that the photographs are forged and NASA forced to admit they forged them, then we can ask the real question. Not how, but why? Why it was forged?

Before that, we play NASA’s game giving the right answer to the wrong question.